I would label Bayesianism a philosophy more than a skill.
There’s are a bunch of skills. That are part of Bayesianism.Having well calibrated confidence intervals is a skill. There the simple skill to solve Bayes equation. There the skill to still solve Bayes equation when faced with a potentially mind killing topic. There are probably a bunch of others.
Depends on if you use it to activate analysis paralysis, cynicism, and to find excellent excuses, or to make good decisions and act on them. Most any skill can be abused, even the most useful ones.
Still, one can ask if generally speaking, a person is better off learning Skill X.
Doesn’t stop one from answering that, generally speaking, it depends on the person and circumstances. :-p
On a more serious note, I think that it is rather different to ask if for a skill X, X is more useful than not to the sort of people that learned X, as compared to asking if a random person would benefit from X. For example, I’d say that learning neurosurgery procedures is useful to a huge percentage of the people who learned it, but useless to the average person. I’d say rationality skills are probably most useful to precisely the sort of people who would not learn any, while providing diminishing returns to rationalists
Doesn’t stop one from answering that, generally speaking, it depends on the person and circumstances.
You can answer that way, but it’s not an answer to the question. And perhaps the question doesn’t have an answer. Or perhaps you don’t know. But I think it’s better to be explicit on those issues.
Is Bayesianism a skill or an anti-skill?
I would label Bayesianism a philosophy more than a skill.
There’s are a bunch of skills. That are part of Bayesianism.Having well calibrated confidence intervals is a skill. There the simple skill to solve Bayes equation. There the skill to still solve Bayes equation when faced with a potentially mind killing topic. There are probably a bunch of others.
Yes, good point. Although one could also ask if Bayesianism is an anti-philosophy :)
Depends on if you use it to activate analysis paralysis, cynicism, and to find excellent excuses, or to make good decisions and act on them. Most any skill can be abused, even the most useful ones.
I would have to agree with that. Still, one can ask if generally speaking, a person is better off learning Skill X.
Doesn’t stop one from answering that, generally speaking, it depends on the person and circumstances. :-p
On a more serious note, I think that it is rather different to ask if for a skill X, X is more useful than not to the sort of people that learned X, as compared to asking if a random person would benefit from X. For example, I’d say that learning neurosurgery procedures is useful to a huge percentage of the people who learned it, but useless to the average person. I’d say rationality skills are probably most useful to precisely the sort of people who would not learn any, while providing diminishing returns to rationalists
You can answer that way, but it’s not an answer to the question. And perhaps the question doesn’t have an answer. Or perhaps you don’t know. But I think it’s better to be explicit on those issues.
I would say that bayesianism is virtually the closest one can get to a pure, context-independent skill.
What are some specific, concrete positives?